2013 has been a boon year for drug policy reform everywhere in the nation except, sadly, in California. I have watched law enforcement evolve and implement strategies nationwide that reduce the harms of substance abuse, while national political leaders have embraced the drug policy discussion as a bipartisan issue. The most recent includes Senator Rand Paul and Senate candidate Cory Booker, who aired their grievances about the drug war on Twitter. Their tweets were tongue and cheek, yet discussed working on serious issues that have been exacerbated by many of the failures of the drug war, including mandatory minimum sentencing and the federal laws surrounding industrial hemp and marijuana.

I have been asked why I continue to maintain my voter registration status as a Republican in a two-party system that seems – well – utterly dysfunctional. More often than not I wonder myself, as I become increasingly frustrated with my local representatives (some not all) as they refuse to engage in the necessary discussions critical to fixing the many failings of our bloated criminal justice system. I believe that part of the intransigence of elected officials not just in Orange County, but across our state, is the fear of being perceived as “soft on crime” to the electorate or, worse, to public safety unions and professional associations.

This fear is unfounded as polling on not just the use of marijuana but around the success of the drug war reveals that the public does not support prohibition. The latest Gallup poll discovered that 58% of the respondents agreed that “the use of marijuana should be made legal.” Similarly a 2012 Rasmussen poll reflected that only 7% of Americans believe we are winning the war on drugs. Clearly these numbers can be used to show that ending the war on drugs is both sound policy and a winning issue for voters.

This piece is not meant to publicly “out” elected officials but to discuss the fear that merely acknowledging the Drug War’s failure will dash political careers near and far. This suggests the question: How do we create a “safe space” for both our political and law enforcement leaders to publicly acknowledge what most admit behind closed doors, which is that, indeed, our current policy is a failure. I propose that we start a Drug-War Addiction 12-step Program where lawmakers and law enforcement leaders can safely discuss why they are addicted to the Drug War (okay sarcasm here), and how they can change.

The first step is admitting that one cannot control one’s addiction to maintaining the status quo despite all evidence that an unbalanced enforcement-only policy has not achieved any measurable success in reducing illicit drug use;

We must than recognize that a higher power can gives us strength. In drug policy reform this higher power is “harm reduction” which is using a public health model to minimize the effects of drug abuse and our ineffective policies. Harm reduction is based not just on science and best practices, but also on compassion and respect for human rights;

Examining and making amends for past errors with the help of a sponsor. Making amends requires that we acknowledge that part of our failure to change is the addiction to the many perks of the Drug War. This can include policing for profit under the guise of asset forfeiture, federal categorical block grants that supplement police budgets based on narcotics enforcement only, or Department of Defense surplus equipment (4.2 billion worth nationally since 1990) that has contributed to the militarization of our police. I propose Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) to fulfill that role, as we have already conquered our addictions by adhering to these steps;

Learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior will be the most difficult as it requires changes in both ideology and policy. But we have many law enforcement leaders to emulate who have evolved and are now publicly acknowledging the failure of the drug war and have implemented successful harm reduction programs. Notable examples include the Seattle Police Department Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program which gives officers the ability to connect low-level, non-violent drug dealers and users with treatment and services as an alternative to taking them to jail. Or the Quincy, Massachusetts Police Department who have saved 170 lives by issuing Naloxone, which reverses opioid overdoses, thus linking policing and positive public health outcomes. And lastly, King County Sheriff Urquhart who recently admitted the failure of the Drug War in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee;

But the last and most important tenet is helping other politicians and criminal justice professionals who suffer from the same addiction or compulsion to recognize how their support of a policy based not on science but on rhetoric has contributed to many of the shortcomings of public safety today. These shortcomings include law enforcement corruption, policing for profit, the subversion of American constitutional rights, excessive force, mass incarceration, racial profiling, death, disease and addiction, to name just a few.

So maybe my sarcasm really isn’t that ironic. After looking at the consequences of drug war addiction perhaps it’s time to make peace with drugs by implementing an abstinence-only solution to a 40-year drug war addiction. It couldn’t be any worse. Here, I’ll start. My name is Diane and I am a recovering drug war addict.

About Diane Goldstein

Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement who retired as the first female lieutenant for the Redondo Beach Police Department, (CA). She is a speaker and Executive Board Member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and a member of the Moms United To End The War on Drugs Steering Committee. She is a guest columnist for a variety of publications as well as appearing on television , and on radio as a political commentator.

18 Comments

I’m happy to say that over the past few years (going back as far as Prop 19) OC’s Democratic Party has consistently taken the position you prefer. So if you decide on a major party switch, we’d love to have you.

What’s your take on the prospect of finally passing a legalization initiative this year? I’m not sure which groups are filing — and what they’re filing. I’d love to see a “unity” campaign that everyone could get behind.

Sadly I have met with as many Democrats as I have Republicans…literally first words out of their staff’s mouth or their own is usually “what does public safety think?” So this is actually directed at both parties. Individually I know a significant number of folks (not elected) in either party that agree with the view of rationally discussing alternatives to the drug war and that the system needs to change. The change is not occurring quickly enough for me though.

It’s not coming quickly enough for me either — but until the OCGOP matches the DPOC’s ante (and I hope that they will), there’s a better of the two options. And I appreciate your trying to change views of public safety from the inside.

I’m still interested in knowing what you think of the prospective for a successful initiative this year (and why, and how to boost those odds.)

Correa is a lost cause. Solorio, dal, and Sharon all rely on the juice from LEO orgs for campaign donations and equally so to be ion the same side as the LEO organizations for the boost in promotion by them. You would do well by highlighting the expense of the current state of affairs to the average taxpayer. This will make the allure of LEO support less appealing to the average voter and take the wind out of the sails of those who would use that as a marketing tool to voters. Lou Correa is a human hater and wont be swayed by that.

I reiterate my position that I would like to see the gov’t declare a war on war…I’ll bet there are some government stooges who could do that with a straight face too.

Of course if we prefer to benefit society in the long term we should lobby for a war on peace if we keep in mind just how easily government screws up it’s objectives. Just look what they’ve accomplished in the effort to make the world “drug” free.

Now those are just plain silly. But if we’re to have hope for the end of the war on (some) drugs we need something to keep the prohibitionist parasites and their sycophants from getting into real mischief.

When I consider that the sycophants of prohibition are just none too bright and are very easily confused, I can only come up with one solution: the war on bugs. Since bugs rhymes with drugs and has the same number of syllables that will make for a more orderly facilitation of the transition by not confusing the sycophants any more than is humanly possible to avoid.

The prohibitionist parasites will not lose any job security since this is yet another futile “war”. There’s actually a darn good possibility it will increase their potential for employment because there are so many damn bugs. Also, bugs don’t vote, picket, have any Constitutionally protected rights, or know how to petition the government for redress of grievances. The only potential problem here may be family loyalty or professional courtesy since so darn many bugs are also parasites.

Mandatory disclosure of personal interest: I may or may not support the proposal as a result of my genuine, deep seated hatred of insects. But unless I’m grossly mistaken nobody really likes bugs except for forensic nerds on CSI.

I think that a “War on Bugs” may target too many bugs that don’t do other living things any real harm — or may even have a positive effect. I suggest a narrower focus that will protect our tender vegetables — a “War on Slugs.”

I have been trying to find the budget for North County SWAT for OC. It’s impossible. They keep those numbers well hidden. Do you know what the budget is and how it’s funded? I know that each department is required to pay for the equipment for their own members. And, how do you find the stats on how many times NC SWAT is sent out a month and for what? It’s just maddening that these numbers are not readily available.

My next question is, what is your opinion on the Copley ruling? And how do you feel about legislation overturning it? Also, do you think that some reforms to POBOR are called for? From reading POBOR, the Copley ruling and now the new legislation about Brady cops, I think POBOR has gone from protecting law enforcement from harm to protecting them from prosecution. Do you think that if the Copley ruling hadn’t come down, that Jay Cinicinelli would have been hired by Fullerton after being medically retired after the shooting that caused him to lose his eye? Because, under POST, monocular vision is usually a disqualifier for hiring.

What is your opinion of today’s news report about the two Torrance officers not being charged? Again, do you think that things would be different without Copley?

I am so sorry for bombarding you with all of this but you seem like such a great resource for my questions. I am not a cop-basher. But, I do believe that any entity that holds so much power, when allowed to self-monitor, will usually devolve into a “Lord of the Flies” scenario. It’s human nature, IMO. I know that there are a lot of good officers out there. But, the communities are scared and they are becoming very hostile. It’s no longer just a socio-economic thing. And I think that this CAN be resolved but it will take some giving on law enforcement’s part. I would truly love to know your opinion. Believe me, if we disagree, no harm. This is on a very respectful level.